Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications

Volume 4 | Issue 1
ISSN: 2575-5501
Review Article Open Access

Sacral Neuromodulation for Bowel Dysfunction

Weledji EP*1 and Marti L2
1
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health sciences, University of Buea, Cameroon
2
Department of Surgery, Kantonspital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author: Weledji EP, Pemset House, Lumpsum quarters, Limbe, S.W. Region, Cameroon, Tel: 237699922144, E-mail:
elroypat@yahoo.co.uk

Citation: Weledji EP, Marti L (2022) Sacral Neuromodulation for Bowel Dysfunction. J Gastroenterol Compl 4(1): 101

Abstract
Prevention of obstetric trauma from damage to the pelvic floor is not always possible and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS)
may be necessary later in life. Sacral nerve stimulation has been a promising innovation in the management of moderate to
severe faecal incontinence and following sphincter repair failure. Although the indication spectrum for SNS is expanding,
the success of neuromodulation for constipation is limited. Adverse events of SNS requiring reintervention are not com-
mon but a long-term successful outcome may depend on interventions for maintenance of the device.

Keywords: Pelvic Floor; Bowel; Dysfunction; Sacral Nerve; Stimulation

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications 2

Introduction

The commonest cause of faecal incontinence in women is obstetric trauma (Table 1) [1,2]. Urge incontinence is a marker of severe
external anal sphincter dysfunction associated with reduction in voluntary squeeze pressure and multiple vaginal deliveries [1,2]. The
original idea of nerve stimulation came from the improved anal squeeze pressure following the stimulation of a portion of the puden-
dal nerve (S2-4) below the ischial spine. The sacral nerve roots (S3 or S4) were however the easiest to access and, the first stimulators
for sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for urinary urge incontinence and non-obstructive urinary retention were implanted by Tanagho
and Schmidt in 1988 [3]. Observations have noted benefits beyond voiding disorders which include re-establishment of pelvic floor
muscle awareness, resolution of pelvic floor muscle tension and pain, and normalization of bowel function [4]. Trials on patients with
functional deficits but an intact external anal sphincter and, faecal incontinence (FI) resistant to conservative treatments (anti-diar-
rhoeals, biofeedback) were extremely encouraging [4,5]. The indication spectrum evolved in the following years and patients with
limited sphincteric damage, idiopathic sphincter degeneration, partial spinal cord injury, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), sclero-
derma, rectopexy or low anterior resection benefited from the use of SNS [4]. Thus, the aetiology of FI and the extent of sphincter
damage did not seem to limit treatment success [6-9]. Although more recently some benefit is being shown in patients with both
slow and normal transit constipation, a Cochrane review by Thaha et al concluded that SNS did not improve symptoms in patients
with constipation [10]. Long-term outcome may be predicted from clinicalsymptomatology and manometric neurophysiological
testing before surgery in idiopathic faecal incontinence although there is no clear correlation. Anorectal investigation has revealed a
large group of parous women with occult sphincter trauma which may have a clinical impact as these women get older [2]. SNS had
become a recognized treatment option for faecal incontinence with more than 800 implants in Europe at 2003 and 340,000 implants
in both urology and coloproctology in 2021 [11-14]. The establishment of national registries was important for quality assurance and
the further development of this therapy [11].

Trauma Colorectal disease Congenital Neurological Miscellaneous

Obstetric Haemorrhoids Spinal bifida Cerebral Behavioural
Surgical Rectal prolapse Operations for Spinal Impaction
Accident/war injury Inflammatory bowel imperforate anus Peripheral Encopresis
disease Hirschsprung’s
Tumours disease
Table 1: Aetiology of faecal incontinence [4]

Anatomical and Physiological background of Sacral Nerve Stimulation

The hindgut and continence mechanisms are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic nerve supplies. Somatic (extrinsic) nerve
supply to the continence mechanism acts on both the externalanal sphincter and levator ani muscles (S 2- 4) which during acute
sacral nerve stimulation testing contract causing a ‘bellows’ movement in the perineum (contraction and lifting of the anus and pel-
vic floor) . Intrinsic nerve supply in the bowel wall is found in the submucosal (Meissner’s) and the myenteric (Auerbach’s) plexuses
that controls the contractile and some secretory functions of the bowel. Extrinsic autonomic nerves (sympathetic and parasympa-
thetic) are modulatory and act upon the intrinsic system. Sympathetic innervations arises from T1-L2 and via the sympathetic chain
and inferior mesenteric and hypogastric plexuses reinforced by lumbar and sacral sympathetic splanchnics inhibits colonic motility
and stimulates the internal anal sphincter. Parasympathetic supply arises from S 2-4 to form the pelvic splanchnic nerves and via
the superior and inferior hypogastric plexuses has the opposite effect on the hindgut and internal anal sphincter respectively. These
two parts of the autonomic system act in a balanced and reciprocal fashion with activity being the result of the two opposing forces.
The anatomical and physiological convergence of the somatic and autonomic nerves occurs at the sacral level. The sacral nerves are
a mixed nerve with the largest fibres with the lowest threshold being the 1a sensory fibres followed by the alpha- motoneurones.
Hence, on acute testing external sphincter contraction and a ‘bellows’ movement is seen. In long term stimulation an increase in

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4| Issue 1

3 Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications

maximal squeeze pressure or duration of voluntary contraction may be expected. Stimulation of the autonomic nervous system
might be expected to alter internal anal sphincter function and hence resting pressure as well as affecting hind-gut motility. Although
no consistent rise in resting pressure is seen 24 hour ambulatory manometry studies did show change in hindgut and anal function.
Afferent sensory pathways are poorly defined and accompany autonomic fibres. On physiological testing a significant improvement
in rectal sensation is observed following SNS. The intermediate transition zone of the anal canal is just above the dentate line and
plays a central role in sensory function and eliciting continence. The rectoanal inhibitory reflex in which increasing rectal distension
is associated with transient reflex relaxation of the internal anal sphincter and contraction of the external anal sphincter enables the
discrimination between solid, liquid and flatus. Although the mechanism of action of SNS remains elusive, it is likely that the mod-
ulation of the somatic fibres to the external anal sphincter and pelvic floor, autonomic fibres to the internal anal sphincter and colon
and the afferent sensory fibres from the anus and rectum confers the benefit to patients. The relative contributions and the spinal and
supraspinal effect of stimulation on the higher centres remain to be elucidated [13,15].

Management of faecal incontinence

The management of faecal incontinence would depend on the aetiology. Most patients who have a specific sphincter defect follow-
ing obstetric or direct injury identified by three-dimensional manometry or endoanal ultrasound are best served by surgical repair.
However, surgical options are limited as many patients do not have a sphincter defect amenable to repair [13]. In addition, sphincter
repair procedures, post anal repair and total pelvic floor repair have proved ineffective in the long-term [4,13]. Those with severe
neuropathic incontinence are best treated by intensive conservative management with control of stool consistency and physiotherapy
or pelvic floor retraining (biofeedback) before surgical treatment is considered [16]. Biofeedback (behavioural) treatment is particu-
larly useful in patients who have primarily a sensory problem in the anal canal leading to insensible loss of faeces. Patients are trained
using either electromyographic or manometric feedback to improve the strength of their anal sphincters and ifcoupled with an in-
trarectal balloon may improve their rectal sensory awareness [16]. More specific physiotherapy using either interferential treatment
of the pelvic floor and, in particular trophic stimulation via anal plug electrode which uses electrical impulses designed to mimic the
train of signals along the pudendal nerve can be extremely successful. The precise role of electrical stimulation of the pelvic floor is
unclear, but the results are almost equivalent to those obtained by post anal repair [17]. Biofeedback training cause improvement of
70 % of patients and can improve patients with structural defects of the anal sphincters [4,17]. A proportion with persistent severe
incontinence required more intensive treatment and direct surgical intervention had been the next step. External anal sphincter de-
fects may be dealt with by anterior overlapping sphincter repair. Early results showed good symptomatic improvement in 70-80% of
patients [4]. However, long term follow up showed that results deteriorated with time. This is because, although the primary problem
may have been a specific sphincter defect, an additional levatorplasty was necessary as many of these patients will have a degree of
coexisting neuropathic damage to the pelvic floor, particularly following multiple vaginal deliveries [2,19]. Although the presence
of neuropathic damage in these patients did not alter the initial surgical management it did influence prognosis as seen in the poor
long-term benefit from post anal repair or a total pelvic floor repair [18]. Parks in 1975 [20] had developed the post anal repair to
re-establish the normal 900 anorectal angle which is a key factor in the continence mechanism. This was obtuse in many patients with
idiopathic faecal incontinence. However, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency was the only preoperative variable that correlated
with long-term outcome of post anal repair confirming the role of pudendal nerve damage. [11,13]. Although the early results were
encouraging, the progression of pudendal nerve damage over time led to disappointing long-term results following post anal repair
for neurogenic incontinence [17,19]. The aetiology of this progressive denervation is not known. The operation of total pelvic floor
repair was devised in response to the fact that many patients had associated anatomical defects such as rectocele and abnormal per-
ineal descent. Results from total pelvic floor repair were initially encouraging, with 90% of patients either being fully continent or
with improved continence. However, long term follow-up of a group of 57 patients revealed that only 14% were rendered completely
continent and social activity remained compromised in 76% [17]. Since the advent of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) total pelvic
floor repair has become obsolete. The indications for stimulated neosphincter formation are expanding but dynamic graciloplasty
and artificial bowel sphincter implants require major surgery and have a high morbidity and failure rate [4].The magnetic sphincter
augmentation device for adult faecal incontinence has much greater morbidity than SNS [13]. The placement of a permanent stoma
has also always been an option [1,4].

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications 4

Sacral Nerve Stimulation

SNS is an expensive therapy that requires a dedicated team for an optimal outcome [4]. When SNS was first used for patients in the
field of urology it was noted that patients with concomitant faecal incontinence derived benefit. Following further studies, a similar
technique utilized for faecal incontinence showed promising results [5-12,21-38]. In addition, the technique of test stimulation prior
to full implantation offered a unique advantage over other treatment options. A trial of SNS was justified for patients in whom the
primary aetiology appeared to be neurogenic and in whom preoperative investigations had failed to reveal a sphincter defect. To
qualify for assessment for SNS, the patient should have at least one episode of faecal incontinence per week to either solid or liquid
stool. They should have failed maximal medical therapy, including the use of anti-diarrhoeal medication and a course of biofeed-
back treatment [4,13]. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Table 2 [4,21]. Prior to stimulation all patients would
complete a bowel habit diary for a two or three week period. As treatment intends to improve quality of life, a health survey quality
of life questionnaire for faecal incontinence [21] is helpful instruments to assess the impact of SNS on quality of life. Endoanal
ultrasound and anorectal physiological testing are performed in each patient to assess any structural or functional problem of the
continence mechanism. The neuromuscular axis needed to be intact as shown by a residual voluntary function and/or reflex action
of the external anal sphincter. The key advantages of the neuromodulation technique include (1) a conscious sedation which allows
the patient to provide sensory feedback, (2) the control of the lead position with the radiopaque markers by means of fluoroscopy,
(3) the small surgical incision and minimal muscle trauma, and (4) a reduced surgical time. On deciding to proceed with SNS, there
is the benefit of being able to undertake a test stimulation period with either a temporary or permanent electrode implant attached
to an external pulse generator. The test stimulation period thus allows optimization of patient selection prior to implantation of
the definitive implantable nerve stimulator (INS). The newly developed ‘tined lead’ allows minimally invasive placement reducing
operation time, in patient stay and patient discomfort. A percutaneous wire is inserted under general or local anaesthesia into the
second, third or fourth sacral foramen [13,35-37]. The S3 nerve contains efferent and afferent fibres from the anterior part of the le-
vator ani and sensory fibres from the perineum and the genitalia. There is the distinct sensation of perforating the rigid ligamentous
structures as compared with hitting the periosteum of the sacrum when entering the dorsal opening of the foramen. The angle of
insertion should be acute (600 at the level of the skin) to minimize the risk of nerve or vascular damage and as the needle has to cross
soft tissue before entering the foramen, its entrance point should be cephalad to the position of the foramen. Gentle movements
in millimeter steps with intermittent stimulation of graduated amplitude will help optimize positioning. Markers on the needle
electrode indicate the depth of placement. A motor response of the pelvic floor and the anus (if general anaesthesia) or a sensory
response (if local anaesthesia) will optimize the positioning of the needle. S2 stimulation results in a clamp-like contraction of the
perineal muscles and an outward rotation of the ipsilateral leg. S3 stimulation leads to contraction of the levator ani and external
anal sphincter, resulting in a bellows-like movement and circular contraction of the anus, along with plantar flexion of the first and
second toes. S4 affects the posterior part of levator ani with sensation around the anus and has no motor effect on the legs [35,36].
It thus produces a bellows-like contraction of the levator ani and circular contraction of the anus without movement of leg, foot, or
toe. There is no recommendation on S3 or S4 stimulation [37] as a study showed no difference in the effect on incontinence [38].
A successful position is manifested by contraction of the pelvic floor and flexion of the ipsilateral great toe. The wire is connected
to an external stimulator and the results monitored for a period of 2-3 weeks. If successful, a permanent indwelling stimulator can
be inserted. Patient selection for permanent implantation is based on the degree of improvement in continence as ascertained from
bowel diaries completed before and during temporary stimulation and patient satisfaction. A 50% or greater improvement in either
the total number of faecal incontinent episodes or in the number of days affected by incontinent episodes is the recommended suc-
cess criteria in order to proceed to permanent implantation [9, 23]. A permanent tined electrode is implanted via a percutaneous
approach. The implantable nerve stimulator (INS) is connected and inserted into a subcutaneous pocket created in the ipsilateral
buttock and the settings can be altered transcutaneously by the clinician or patient. The programmer communicates non-invasively
by means of a radiofrequency signal with the INS which can be easily used in the operating room and the clinic due to its compact
size. The technical development will continue to further minimize the invasiveness and increase the effectiveness. This will include
smaller sized pulse generators with a direct connect lead and enhancements to the physician as well as the patient programmer.
Physicians will eventually be able to download several programs onto the patient programmer to allow the patient to toggle between

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

5 Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications

different programmes to achieve optimal therapy benefit. Linking diagnostic procedures with SNS may also play an important role
in the further development of this therapy. SNS has developed over the past decades not only in terms of indications, but also with
regard to the technique itself. These technical innovations resulted in a less invasive procedure for patients and an easier and more
reliable approach for physicians. The test stimulation is associated with a very low level of complications, and a complication rate
of 5-10% for insertion of a permanent implant [7]. Initial reports suggested improvement of continence in approximately 70-80%
of patients who permanently implanted [4-7,9,27]. Bilateral stimulation may provide a solution for patients who have not benefited
from or have not had optimal results with unilateral stimulation [34]. As the indication spectrum is evolving the invasiveness of the
procedure is being reduced. Most re-interventions are due to expected maintenance rather than to adverse events requiring oper-
ative revisions. All patients with non- rechargeable INSs need a battery change after a number of years. However, re-operations for
complications are worthwhile as they sustain the treatment success [40].

Indication Absolute exclusion Probable good results With care

criteria
Urge & Passive Skin disease (Pilonidal Congenital malformation EAS defects (especially
incontinence sepsis) Pregnancy rectal resection (Low longstanding)
Intact external sphincter anterior resection
+/- previous repair syndrome)
failed conservative
management

Table 2: Patient selection criteria [4]

Critical appraisal of earlier published data

Clinical evaluation of SNS was initiated with Matzel et al [11] in Germany publishing the first case series in 1995. At 6 months
follow-up of SNS in 3 patients with FI, full continence was achieved in 2 patients and one patient improved from daily urge incon-
tinence to passive soiling only. Later published studies had reported excellent clinical results and very few complications [28-33].
These included pain at the electrode or pulse generator site [29], infection and recurrent lead dislodgement [31], superficial wound
dehiscence and lead migration [33], and these complications required explantation. Changes in manometric data have not been con-
sistent between series and on a case-by-case basis but a significant increase in squeeze and resting pressure was noted in a number
of publications [31-35]. There was a significant increase in rectal volume tolerability and rectal sensitivity following successful treat-
ment with SNS for faecal incontinence. A significant increase in anal resting pressure controlled by the autonomic nerves, but not in
maximum squeeze pressure suggests that SNS causes neuromodulation at the spinal level [36]. Standardized methods of evaluation
were applied to refine accurate patient characterization for SNS. The technique appeared to benefit patients who had an intact anal
sphincter on ultrasound and some preservation of pudendal nerve function. Earlier studies had demonstrated the benefit of sacral
neuromodulation in patients with spinal cord injuries [31]. This corroborates the fact that a morphologically intact anal sphincter is
not necessary for success with sacral nerve stimulation in patients with FI [32]. The short and medium-term successes of SNS in pa-
tients with FI have been demonstrated in several studies [37-39]. Earlier studies demonstrated that in the medium term sacral nerve
stimulation is an effective option of patients with neuropathic incontinence who had failed conservative treatment and whose only
viable alternative option would be a stoma [24-27]. Although SNS was accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA) in
2011, longer- term studies in the United States (USA) in larger number of patients with reasonable follow-up ( > 3years) confirmed
an efficacy of about 50%. [34]. For young patients who have severe sphincter injuries, a failed sphincter repair, or insufficient residual
sphincter consideration is given to either SNS or some form of sphincter augmentation or artificial bowel sphincter [4]. The current
evidence suggests a high efficacy of SNS along with a low complication rate in FI regardless of the aetiology [6,24,41-48]. There is a
success rate of 66.8%-90% [44,47,48] over a follow-up period of over 3 years [43,44,47]. A reduction of > 50% in involuntary evac-
uations per week is described in 75-84% of patients [37,46] with a Wexner score reduction from 16 to 7 [43]. Although long term
follow-up with a large number of patients are rare studies with long-term follow-up have shown lasting effect [47,48]. Widmann et

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications 6

al [39] in 2019 demonstrated 70% successful outcome in 79 patients seven years after implantation. Although re-interventions due
to complications were necessary for 24 patients (30%), these patients had a 5-year success rate of 89% compared to78% for patients
without intervention. A lead position at S3 was associated with an improved outcome. However, the largest recent multicentre study
by Altomare et al [45] that included 222 patients showed a 5-year success rate of 54%. The better outcome in the Widmann et al’s
study may be due to the rigorous follow-up with the consequent maintenance intervention [39]. Adverse events requiring operative
revision were not common but mechanical lead damage, dislodgement or migration required re-intervention. The fact that pelvic
floor functioning rely on a complex interplay between various mechanisms may be a challenge to the procedure with regard to pa-
tient selection and efficacy. Nevertheless, SNS is gaining an increasing role in treatment of bowel disorders for whom therapy was
limited [4,46,49,50] including bowel dysfunction from anorectal malformation [51,52]. SNS is effective in patients with FI after
surgery for anal atresia [52] as well as those with LARS (low anterior resection syndrome) [46]. Ramage et al [46] concluded in their
systematic review that sacral nerve stimulation for LARS was effective in 75% and 94% at intention-to-treat analysis and per-pro-
tocol analysis, respectively. Constipation is an area in which SNS’s role has been investigated and earlier reports of a pan-European
study had been encouraging with approximately 60% of patients selected for temporary implant going onto successful permanent
implantation [37]. However, when a multicentre prospective consecutive cohort study evaluated the efficacy of SNS in patients with
idiopathic constipation, only those with slow or normal transit but impaired evacuation benefited [53]. Current studies described
~30% response of SNS for refractory constipation, although a small group of patients were highly satisfied [54]. Although medium-
term success rates of up to 90% have been reported, [55] the overall results are disappointing especially as the efficacy deteriorates
with time [37,39]. The outcome seems better when FI is accompanied by constipation [39,56]. As SNS therapy for constipation is less
effective than for FI [39,57], further trials are suggested [58]. Early results from SNS for severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are
promising which indicates evidence of pelvic floor dyssynergia in IBS [58-60]. Although SNS is a relatively expensive procedure, a
study indicated SNS treatment for IBS being cost-effective from a 7-year perspective onwards [61].

Conclusions

SNS is a minimally invasive procedure that offers a real alternative to patients with refractory pelvic floor dysfunctions. Its safety
profile is very favourable. Although the mechanism of action remains unknown, it offers an effective sustainability treatment for FI
especially the majority of patients with neuropathic faecal incontinence. Re-interventions are worthwhile as they sustain the treat-
ment success. The success of SNS for constipation is, however, limited.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

7 Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications

References

1. Wald A (2007) “Fecal incontinence in adults”. N Engl J Med 356: 1648-55.

2. Guise JM, Morris C, Osterweil P (2007) Incidence of fecal incontinence after child birth”. Obstet Gyn 109: 281-8.

3. Tanagho EA, Schmidt RA (1988) “Electrical stimulation in the clinical management of the neurogenic bladder”. The J of Urology
14096: 1331-9.

4. National institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2013) “Faecal incontinence: the management of faecal incontinence in adults.
Clinical guidelines CG”:49, National Institute for Health and care Excellence (NICE).

5. Rosen HR, Urbarz C, Holzer B (2001)“Sacral nerve stimulation as a treatment for fecal incontinence”. Gastroenterology 121: 536-
41.

6. Boyle DJ, Knowles CH, Lunniss PJ (2009) “Efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in patients with anal sphinc-
ter defects”. Dis Colon Rectum 52: 1234-9.

7. Altomare DF, Giuratrabocchetta S, Knowles CH (2015) “Long-term outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence”.
Br J Surg 102: 407-15.

8. Gourcerol G, Gallas S, Michot F (2007) “Sacral nerve stimulation in fecal incontinence: are there factors associated with success”?
Dis Colon Rectum 50: 3-12.

9. Roy AL, Gourcerol G, Menard JF (2014) ‘Predictive factors for successful sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of fecal incon-
tinence: lessons from a comprehensive treatment assessment”. Dis Colon Rectum 57: 772-80.

10. Thaha MA, Abukar AA, Thin NN (2015) Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 8: CD 004464.

11. Matzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Hohenfellner M (1995) Electrical stimulation of sacral spinal nerves for treatment of faecal inconti-
nence. Lancet 346: 1124-7.

12. Ganio E, Lue AR, Clerico G (2001) Sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of faecal incontinence. A novel approach for intracta-
ble fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 44: 619-31.

13. Jayne PG, Williams AE, Corrigen N, Croft J, Pillan A, (2021) Sacral nerve stimulation versus the magnetic sphincter augmenta-
tion device for adult faecal incontinence. Health Technol Assess 25: 1-96.

14. Hernandez-Hernandez D, Padilla- Fernandez B, Romera CM, Medler HS, CastroDiaz, D (2021) Long-term outcomes of sacral
nerve stimulation in pelvic floor dysfunctions. Int Neurourol J 10.5213/inj.2040364.182.

15. Weledji EP (2017) The electrophysiological basis of faecal incontinence and its implications for treatment. Annals of Coloproc-
tology 33: 161-8.

16. Cooper EA, Df- Loyde KJ, Young CJ (2016) Pudendal nerve testing does not contribute to surgical decision making following
anorectal testing in patients with faecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 31: 1437-42.

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications 8

17. Norton C, Chelvanayagam S, Wilson-Barnet J (2003) Randomised control trial of biofeedback for fecal incontinence. Gastroen-
terology 125: 1320-9.

18. Pinho M, Ortiz J, Oya M (1992) Total pelvic floor repair for the treatment of neuropathic fecal incontinence. Am J Surg 163:
340-3.

19. Weledji EP, Elong A, Verla V (2014) Secondary repair of severe chronic fourth-degree perineal tear due to obstetric trauma. J
Surg Case Rep 2014: 2.

20. Parks AG (1975) Anorectal incontinence. Proc R Soc Med 68: 681-90.

21. Roy AL, Gourcerol G, Menaed JF (2014) Predictive factors for successful sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of fecal incon-
tinence: lessons from a comprehensive treatment assessment. Dis Colon Rectum 5: 772-80.

22. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW (2000) Fecal Incontinence Quality of life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients
with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43: 9-16.

23. Kenefick NJ, Christiansen J (2004) A review of sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis
6: 75-80.

24. Kenefick NJ, Vaizey CJ, Cohen R (2002) Medium-term results of permanent sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br
J Surg 89: 896-901.

25. Melenhorst J, Koch SM, Uludag O (2007) Sacral neuromodulation in patients with faecal incontinence: results of the first 100
permanent implantations. Colorectal Dis 9: 725-30.

26. Malouf AZ, Vaizey CJ, Nicholls RJ (2000) Permanent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Ann Surg 232: 143-8.

27. Rosen HR, Urbarz C, Holzer B (2002) Sacral nerve stimulation as a treatment for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 121: 536-
41.

28. Ganio E, Ratto C, Masin A (2001) Neuromodulation for fecal incontinence: Outcome in 16 patients with definitive implant. Dis
Colon Rectum 44: 965-70.

29. Leroi AM, Michot F, Grise P (2001) Effect of sacral nerve stimulation in patients with fecal and urinary incontinence. Dis Colon
Rectum 44: 779-89.

30. Uludag O, Darby M, Dejong C (2002) Sacral neuromodulation: effective in the treatment of faecal incontinence with intact
sphincter muscles; a prospective study. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 146: 989-93.

31. Jarrett ME, Matzel KF, Christiansen J (2005) Sacral nerve stimulation of faecal incontinence in patients with previous partial
spinal injury including disc prolapse. Br J Surg 92: 734-9.

32. Melenhorst J, Koch SM, Uludag O (2008) Is a morphologically intact anal sphincter necessary for success with sacral nerve mod-
ulation in patients with faecal incontinence? Colorectal Dis 10: 257-62.

33. Matzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Bittorf B (2002) Bilateral sacral spinal nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence after low anterior rec-

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

9 Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications

tum resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 17: 430-34.

34. Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD (2013) SNS Study group. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal
incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 56: 234-45.

35. Dijkema HE, Weil EH, Mijs PT (1993) Neuromodulation of sacral nerves for incontinence and voiding dysfunctions. Clinical
results and complications. Eur Urol 24: 72-6.

36. Schmidt RA, Senn E, Tanagho EA (1990) Functional evaluation of sacral nerve root integrity. Report of a technique. Urology 35:
388-92.

37. Maeda Y, O’Connell PR, Lehur PA (2015) European SNS Bowel Study Group. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and
constipation: a European consensus statement. Colorectal Dis 17: rO74-O87.

38. Patton V, Abraham E, Lubowski DZ (2017) Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: medium-term follow-up from a
single institution. ANZ J Surg 86: 462-6.

39. Widmann B, Galata C, Warschkow R (2019) Success and complication rates after sacral neuromodulation for feacal incontinence
and constipation: a single centre follow-up study. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 25: 1.

40. Michelsen HB, Buntzen S, Krogh K (2006) Rectal volume tolerability and anal pressures in patients with fecal incontinence treat-
ed with sacral nerve stimulation. Dis Colon Rectum 49: 1039-44.

41. Hotouras A, Murphy J, Thin NN (2013) Outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in patients refractory to per-
cutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. Dis Colon Rectum 56: 915-20.

42. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Yeh CH (2008) Sacral nerve stimulation is more effective than optimal medical therapy for severe fecal
incontinence: a randomized, controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum 51: 494-502.

43. Wexner SD, Coller JA, Devroede G (2010) Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: results of a 120-patient prospective
multicenter study. Ann Surg 251: 441-9.

44. Mellgren A, Wexner SD, Coller JA (2011) Long-term efficacy and safety of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis
Colon Rectum 54: 1065-75.

45. Altomare DF, Ratto C, Ganio E (2009) Long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum
52: 11-7.

46. Ramage L, Qiu S, Kontovounisios C, Tekkis P (2015) A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for low anterior resection
syndrome. Colorectal Dis 17: 762-71.

47. Hollingshead JR, Dudding TC, Vaizey CJ (2011) Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: results from a single centre over
a 10-year period. Colorectal Dis 13: 1030-4.

48. Duelund-Jakobsen J, van Wunnik B, Buntzen S (2012) Functional results and patient satisfaction with sacral nerve stimulation
for idiopathic faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis 14: 753-9.

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications 10

49. Stewart WF, Liberman JN, Sandler RS (1999) Epidemiology of constipation (EPOC) study in the United States: relation of clinical
subtypes to sociodemographic features. Am J Gastroenterol 94: 3530-40.

50. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE (2009) Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part II: lower gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroen-
terology 136: 741-54.

51. Ganio E, Masin A, Ratto C (2001) Short-term sacral nerve stimulation for functional anorectal and urinary disturbances: results
in 40 patients: evaluation of a new option for anorectal functional disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 44: 1261-7.

52. Zurbuchen U, Groene J, Otto S (2014) Sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence and constipation in adult patients with
anorectal malformation- a feasibility study in patients with or without surgical dysgenesis. Int J Colorectal Dis 29: 1297-302.

53. Kamm MA, Dudding TC, Melenhorst J (2010) Sacral nerve stimulation for intractable constipation. Neurogastroenterology Gut
59: 333-40.

54. Gortazar de las Casas S, Rubio-Perez I, Saavedra Ambrosy J (2019) Sacral nerve stimulation for constipation: long-term out-
comes. Tech Coloproctol 23: 559-64.

55. Govaert B, Maeda Y, Alberga J (2012) Medium-term outcome of sacral nerve modulation for constipation. Dis Colon Rectum
55: 26-31.

56. Lu PL, Koppen JN, Orsagh-Yentis DK (2018) Sacral nerve stimulation for constipation and fecal incontinence in children: long-
term outcomes, patient benefit, and parent satisfaction. Neurogastroenterology & Motility 30: 2e13189.

57. Dinning PG, Hunt L, Patton V (2015) Treatment efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in slow transit constipation: a two-phase,
double-blind randomized controlled crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol 110: 733-40.

58. Suttor VP, Prott GM, Hanson RD (2010) Evidence for pelvic floor dyssynergia in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Dis
Colon Rectum 53: 156-60.

59. Lundby L, Krogh K, Buntzen S (2008) Temporary sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a pilot
study. Dis Colon Rectum 51: 1074-8.

60. Fassov J, Lunby L, Laurberg S (2017) Three-year follow-up of sacral nerve stimulation for patients with diarrhea- predominant
and mixed irritable bowel syndrome. Colorectal Dis 19: 188-93.

61. Tipsmark LS, Fassov J, Lundby L (2016) Cost effectiveness analysis of sacral nerve stimulation as treatment for severe irritable
bowel syndrome. Colorectal Dis 18: 30-6.

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1

11 Journal of Gastroenterology and Its Complications

Submit your next manuscript to Annex Publishers and

benefit from:
→ Easy online submission process
→ Rapid peer review process
→ Online article availability soon after acceptance for Publication
→ Open access: articles available free online
→ More accessibility of the articles to the readers/researchers within the field
→ Better discount on subsequent article submission
Submit your manuscript at
http://www.annexpublishers.com/paper-submission.php

Annex Publishers | www.annexpublishers.com Volume 4 | Issue 1